Peak Oil (was "petroleum geologist explains US war policy")

[littlebabyjesus]

Solar EROIE, even excluding the energy cost of maintaining the global industrial manufacturing system it is the product of, is too low to maintain industrial society. Including it, it is negative (i.e. an energy sink). Halving it by routing it through a lossy carrier renders it dysfunctional even by the more relaxed energy accounting standards of solar's proponents.

You keep doing this, and it is annoying. Talking about the possibilities of a particular energy source - even talking such possibilities up - does not imply that you think it is THE SOLUTION on its own.

 

[Crispy]

I think stating that the principle is sound is unwarranted by thermodynamics.

I think you're thinking he's talking about using solar PV to electrolyze water. He's not. He's talking about using direct solar heat to drive chemical/physical processes that liberate hydrogen.

I share your skepticism over hydrogen's use as energy storage. The stuff leaks through solid metal for crying out loud!

 

[elbows]

After briefly updating myself about hydrogen the other week, I concluded that with todays technology its the kind of solution you'd only use out of desperation. If you cant get your hands on liquid or gas fuels for essential transport and you can direct a chunk of your electric generation capacity into producing hydrogen, you'd do it, but on a limited scale not directly comparable to todays use of oil. And even then its not certain this is the route a particular country would go down, if it had coal reserves it might be tempted to convert them into a liquid fuel instead. Climate change concerns currently make this an unattractive even as an emergency option, but never say never.

 

[free spirit]

in a rare moment of agreement, I'd have to add my voice to the line up of posters agreeing with Falcon that hydrogen as a storage medium for renewables is a massive red herring in all but the most limit of circumstances.

I can just about envisage some future situation where some form of reversible hydrogen fuel cell process was used to buffer the grid on a relatively local basis to soak up excess renewable generation at periods of high generation / low demand, and pump power back in when the situation is reversed.

maybe if affordable methods of storing hydrogen at high pressure without it just leaking out are available things might be a bit different, but it'd still need to be as a storage method for very localised generation and consumption, as transporting it doesn't make sense.

generally though I'm seriously sceptical that it's going to wind up being particularly useful for much at all.

 

[Falcon]

Well, in the words of the inimitable Captain Jack Sparrow, I think we've all arrived in a very special place.

 

[Falcon]

You keep doing this, and it is annoying. Talking about the possibilities of a particular energy source - even talking such possibilities up - does not imply that you think it is THE SOLUTION on its own.

You also keep doing this (although I'm not annoyed - the point is not intuitive and you cannot be blamed for not grasping it immediately).

Dividing a load between different inadequate solutions does not make an adequate solution.

Solar is, by many accounts, the least inefficient technology. Then all other technologies are, by definition, less efficient. Then a portfolio of diverse technologies is, by definition, less efficient that a portfolio comprising the most efficient solution i.e. solar. So if you can't replace existing arrangements with solar, you can't replace existing arrangements at all.

(I'm talking in overriding thermodynamic terms, not in peripheral considerations such as the possibility that the inadequate wind might blow when the inadequate sun doesn't shine and vice versa, thus making things less inadequate, but not actually adequate.)

 

[free spirit]

Dividing a load between different inadequate solutions does not make an adequate solution.

well it's done us ok for the last 50 odd years.

ie, nuclear, coal, gas etc are all inadequate for the purposes of producing our actual requirements, but combined together they seem to cope ok.

I sort of take your point though, in that the grid does need some level of big generation in order to set the frequency, supply restart capability etc. It is also going to need serious standby / reserve capability as the back up to the renewables in the event that renewables make up the bulk of the annual overall generation figures (which they can do). Seeing as we have something like 40GW of relatively new gas plants though, which I envisage taking up that role towards the end of their operating life (similarly to how the coal plants have done for the last few years), I don't see the issue.

I'm confident there will be sufficient of either gas or coal or both to provide at least peaking and backup capability in addition to hydro, pump storage etc for at least the rest of my lifetime (note, this could well be achieve using only a few percent of the coal and gas currently being used, with renewables, and probably nuclear in some form making up the rest of the annual generation)

Solar is, by many accounts, the least inefficient technology. Then all other technologies are, by definition, less efficient. Then a portfolio of diverse technologies is, by definition, less efficient that a portfolio comprising the most efficient solution i.e. solar. So if you can't replace existing arrangements with solar, you can't replace existing arrangements at all.

did you mean to say least or most there?

Either way, it's neither the least or the most efficient, unless you're talking about the direct conversion of sunlight into energy. Hydro and wind are significantly ahead on that score in EROEI terms, and there are also several worse, so it's reasonbly mid range really.

As for your second point, it's not a very good argument is it. I think anyone who understands renewables will agree that we can't replace our current energy supply with any individual renewable. It needs a paradigm shift in how we think about energy supply to understand how renewables can achieve very low carbon security of supply with the aid of a large amount of back up generation from more conventional sources that are only used to fill in for the short periods of time when renewables (and probably nuclear) can't cover it all.

Well, that and as I said earlier, probably a low number of large generation sets need to be operating around the country in order to effectively set the frequency of the grid for everything else, though I'm not entirely clear about the level of these that's needed (I think there's a national grid study on it somewhere, though i'm not sure they came up with an answer either).

 

[Falcon]

well it's done us ok for the last 50 odd years. ie, nuclear, coal, gas etc are all inadequate for the purposes of producing our actual requirements, but combined together they seem to cope ok.

We've had the use of a petroleum system with a peak liquid offtake capacity of 85 million barrels a day at our disposal, propelling us - with your coal and gas - to within 5 years of irreversible climate instability, and are surrounded by stockpiles of spontaneously combustible and highly toxic nuclear waste which would consume the bulk of our remaining fuel to render safe. It's a curious use of the term 'OK'.

I sort of take your point though, in that the grid does need some level of big generation in order to set the frequency, supply restart capability etc. It is also going to need serious standby / reserve capability as the back up to the renewables in the event that renewables make up the bulk of the annual overall generation figures (which they can do). Seeing as we have something like 40GW of relatively new gas plants though, which I envisage taking up that role towards the end of their operating life (similarly to how the coal plants have done for the last few years), I don't see the issue.

I'm confident there will be sufficient of either gas or coal or both to provide at least peaking and backup capability in addition to hydro, pump storage etc for at least the rest of my lifetime (note, this could well be achieve using only a few percent of the coal and gas currently being used, with renewables, and probably nuclear in some form making up the rest of the annual generation)

See "within 5 years of irreversible climate instability" above and "they can't power the intensely energy consumptive process which is necessary for their manufacture" below. Are you envisaging a system that supports humanity, or just you until your death and sod the rest?

(I won't get into the political reality of the security of gas supply. The world is just waking up to the horrific realisation that Saudi Arabia will be a net energy consumer in a couple of decades - the impact of the loss of the energy provider of last resort on the price and availability of substitutes, including gas, is just beginning to dawn).

did you mean to say least or most there? Either way, it's neither the least or the most efficient, unless you're talking about the direct conversion of sunlight into energy. Hydro and wind are significantly ahead on that score in EROEI terms, and there are also several worse, so it's reasonbly mid range really.

Least. Relative to thermal solar, everything else is even more inefficient. Replace "solar" with "wind" and my point remains. There is no real time, areal energy source that can substitute for a stockpiled, point energy source three orders of magnitude more energetically dense at the scale imposed by a population of 7 billion.

As for your second point, it's not a very good argument is it. I think anyone who understands renewables will agree that we can't replace our current energy supply with any individual renewable. It needs a paradigm shift in how we think about energy supply to understand how renewables can achieve very low carbon security of supply

Once again. If an hour isn't long enough to revise for you exam, then dividing that hour up into 10 six minute segments won't be long enough either. If the best renewable source doesn't power your life, then dividing it up between 10 worse ones won't either. But more problematically: what people who think they understand renewables don't understand is that they can't power the intensely energy consumptive process which is necessary for their manufacture (the global manufacturing system). There is no paradigm shift in how it is used that alters the fact that high tech renewable devices cannot manufacture themselves, and therefore cannot be manufactured, and therefore do not exist post hydrocarbon to have a paradigm shift with.

It is true that there is a population size that can be sustained on the sorts of renewable technologies that do not require the services of a hydrocarbon powered global industrial manufacturing system e.g. the sort of wind turbine you can manufacture and maintain using the resources located less than 50 miles from their operating site and the energy left over from other wind turbines after maintaining the economy. We've done it for the several thousand years of human history preceding 1900, after all. Unfortunately, it doesn't happen to be the population size that has arisen under 100 odd years of hydrocarbon consumption.

 

[free spirit]

you seems to be of the opinion that a MWh of electricity from renewables is somehow different / inferior to a MWh of electricity from a gas / coal / nuclear plant, and therefore incapable of powering industry.

if this is the crux of your argument, I'd have to say that it's somewhat lacking in credibility and understanding of how electricity works.

eg Toyota now have a UK plant with a solar PV system attached that's supplying an average of 4.6GWh a year to the plant to assist with powering its operations, in parallel with the grid.

I'm sure you'll now say something along the lines of ah but it's only powering a small percentage, and the rest is still powered by coal, gas, nukes via the grid... but this misses the point, that this will still be the situation in a high renewables future, it's just that a far higher proportion of the grid generated electricity will be from renewables of all forms, working alongside nuclear, gas and pumped storage (maybe a small amount of clean coal, with or without CCS) to maintain a steady grid supply.

Germany seems to be managing ok as a manufacturing giant, despite approximately 5% of its annual electricity consumption now being supplied from solar, and still rising rapidly with 10% likely by 2020, plus 10% from wind... or a total of over 20% from renewables, projected to rise to 35% by 2020, and 80% by 2050.

Now, I will accept that this is only electricity figures we're talking about`here, and that there is also a requirement for energy for heating, transport and industry that's currently non-electric.

In all 3 sectors, I believe the main sources of savings are going to be efficiency gains, and demand destruction from high prices, plus in heating terms a significant transfer from oil to a mix of local biomass, and commercial biomass pellets, plus heat pumps (which will hopefully be fitted in such a way as to help buffer renewable generation), and ideally improvements in the use of passive and active solar thermal. Then there's the impact of insulation, which is already being felt, with most cavities and lofts now insulated, double glazing relatively standard, and the upcoming roll out of funded solid wall insulation.

In transport terms, there's something in the region of a 50% efficiency saving on the average UK vehicle fleet already in the pipeline as older models get replaced with current generation high efficiency models, and I believe there's plenty of scope for demand destruction in terms of reduced car journeys, plus a switch to a great proportion of public transport, bike, foot etc without it really impacting on peoples quality of life. If the 1 hour plus per day daily commute was finally banished as just being totally uneconomic for people, IMO that'd actually improve their quality of life.

Industry... is not exactly my specialist subject, but where the carbon trust etc. have been allowed to work with industry fairly significant energy and carbon savings have been achievable in most cases.


I will accept though that there remains a significant energy gap that will need to be filled by a mix of fossil fuels, nuclear and any other emerging technologies for the forseeable future.

On the emerging technologies front, IMO the most serious candidate is thorium fueld molten salt reactors, which are now subject to fairly serious development efforts by teams in 4 countries, and I'd expect to be in full commercial production by 2030 or so, and supplying significant proportions of the worlds power requirements by 2050 (probably equivalent to current uranium based nuclear stations). I recently investigated this techology fairly seriously via our consultancy arm, after being approached by a member of the original 1970's R&D team, and the conclusion basically was that it's a very viable technology, and our team couldn't see any problems with it that couldn't be overcome via the application of technological improvements that have already happened since the 70s. The main stumbling block being the blocking position of the current nuclear industry that's wedded to uranium based pressurised water cooled reactors or similar solid state reactors, and holds the key to the funding pots.

that, plus the potential unleashed by a HVDC intercontinental grid to access CST power from North Africa, the middle east etc, as well as Icelands geothermal and hydro potential, Norway's hydro potential (mainly as buffering for our renewables), with interconnectors to canada's huge hydro potential not being out of the question (electrical losses would certainly be in the acceptable range).

 

[elbows]

Because of climate change targets we already have a nice illustration of the scale of the changes required, one that is in the mainstream and state-sponsored. Especially when we look at 2050 targets as opposed to 2020 ones.

The problem is that there has very deliberately been little focus on whats needed on the demand side for the numbers to get anywhere close to balancing. This isnt terribly surprising since the ramifications for many aspects of our lives are not something that can quickly be sold to the masses, rather it will be imposed on people, or hard-sold to them in a long and gruelling way or via a series of shocks.

Anyway I note that factors including public opinion have forced Japan to put on the table targets for an end to nuclear power that are on a similar timescale. I am still not optimistic about how the transition will evolve, but having countries like Germany and Japan putting some serious effort into renewables and other alternatives at least means humanity may have a proper crack at it, rather than barely bringing itself to take part in the game at all.

I think we are broadly stuck with the present argument and set of positions until we reach a phase where the relatively easy first 10-20% of alternative production/increased efficiency/demand reduction is done and we move onto harder territory. Easy for me to say since we arent in a country that has no buffer and is quickly plunged into fuel subsidy cuts an the like.

 

[Falcon]

you seems to be of the opinion that a MWh of electricity from renewables is somehow different / inferior to a MWh of electricity from a gas / coal / nuclear plant, and therefore incapable of powering industry. if this is the crux of your argument, I'd have to say that it's somewhat lacking in credibility and understanding of how electricity works.

It isn't, but nice straw man.

Not only do I know how electricity works, I also know how energy works, and can therefore distinguish between its low grade and high grade forms, noting empirically that industry and society does not run on sunshine and summer breezes, and that electricity is very different form of energy to sunshine and summer breezes.

I know from earlier conversations that your appreciation of thermodynamics is hazy in the matter of energy grade and gradients between its different forms, so I expect you will still wish to argue on this point. But there isn't any latitude for debate. Energy flows "downhill" i.e. it goes spontaneously from a higher grade state to a lower grade state, but never spontaneously from a lower grade state to a higher. So a bath filled with hot water and ice cubes (a high energy state) will turn into a bath of tepid water (a low energy state). Vital point: the bath contains the same amount of energy before and after melting. The value to us of the energy after melting is very much lower.

A bath of tepid water will not spontaneously turn into a bath of ice cubes and hot water, in this universe at least. To achieve that, you must apply an external source of energy i.e. make energy flow "uphill". Fundamental laws governing the operation of the universe dictate both that you must apply large quantities of energy, and that large quantities of energy are irretrievably lost in the process.

Sunshine and summer breezes are low grade energy sources - tepid water. Electricity is high grade electricity - the bath of hot water and ice cubes. The 1 kWh of energy in each are the same, but their capacity to do work are vastly different, and the former must be converted into the latter to be of any use to us.

The conversion process is inherently and substantially lossy. Conversion works for now because we use a high grade energy source (hydrocarbon) to power the "uphill" flow involved in creating electricity, and can throw the large quantities away necessitated by the process (that's what the huge cooling towers are for that you see next to power stations - the inherent dissipation of conversion energy as low grade waste heat into the environment of the thermodynamic system). Note this loss isn't some technological inefficiency that you might hope could be solved by technology - it is a baked in property of the laws governing the universe, and irreducible.

You are asserting (knowingly or otherwise) that a low grade energy source is sufficient to power its own conversion from a low grade state to a high grade state - the equivalent of claiming that a bath can turn spontaneously from tepid water to ice cubes and hot water under the influence of the heat from the bathroom light. You are convinced this is possible because you are not paying adequate attention to the role high grade energy sources are playing in the flow reversal processes you incorrectly believe are self sustaining.

I don't mean to be argumentative, but discussing energy processes without a knowledge of thermodynamics is like discussing astronomy without a knowledge of heliocentricity - pre-Ptolomaic in the bizarreness of its explanations.

 

[free spirit]

You're talking about the efficiency of conversion from eg sunlight, or wind (low grade energy) into electricity (high grade energy) though - at least I think you are.

Currently we do nothing with most of that energy at all, certainly not the stuff falling on roof tops, so the conversion efficiency isn't particularly relevant (although obviously the higher the percentage we can convert the better in the long term, there are often other limits that prevent that being a factor).

The fact is that solar and wind convert the low grade energy to high grade energy in a relatively cost effective and efficient manor, and during their operating lifetime will produce many multiples of the energy required to build and install them.

Once they've converter the low grade energy to high grade electricity, that electricity is just electricity, the same as electricity from any other source*. Yes it requires backing up from other sources, but those power plants are already built and operating and able to provide this back up, with the wind / solar / other renewable generation simply reducing their overall operating time / fuel consumption.




*ok, not the same exactly, as centralised generation systems are set up with big transformer sets to transform the power up to send out on the high voltage grid network, before it's then transformed back down again to local distribution voltages / networks, whereas SSEG PV works the other way around, and there are capacity issues with backfeeding the local transformers, mostly to do with unbalanced load / supply between the 3 phases. We've got a hell of a long way to go before we max out the current grid capacity to absorb SSEG's, and uprating of the transformers is a relatively simple matter anyway.

 

[Falcon]

You're talking about the efficiency of conversion from eg sunlight, or wind (low grade energy) into electricity (high grade energy) though - at least I think you are.

No, I'm not. And that is your problem. I'm talking about the difference in utility between a bath full of tepid water and a bath full of hot water and ice cubes (same energy content, vastly different capacity to do work).

Yes - the planet is bathed in solar radiation. Yes, that solar radiation represents energy. But solar energy is low grade energy, thermodynamically speaking - tepid water. Industrial society runs on high grade energy - ice cubes and hot water (specifically, the gradient between energy states).

This is not about concentrating low grade energy - all that yields is lots of low grade energy. This is about upgrading energy - a fundamentally different thermodynamic process. It therefore has nothing to do with the technical efficiency of the concentration process, and absolutely nothing to do with the financial efficiency of the abstract financial process.

You are proposing that the process of converting a bath full of tepid water into a bath of ice cubes and hot water, using the energy contained in the bath full of tepid water, is achievable. It isn't, at least in this universe.

Grab a copy of The Wealth of Nature if you want a reasonable layman's introduction, or a 1st year university physics textbook on thermodynamics if you want a formal introduction. You can't understand your subject unless you grasp this and there is no point in engaging with your other points about the grid and what happens to the electricity as they are founded on a confusion between concentration and upgrading and therefore meaningless.

(Note to anyone reading this who does understand thermodynamics: I realise the analogy I'm using here is not precise. It is precise enough)

 

[free spirit]

if you stopped using the stupid analagies and just said exactly what you meant it'd help a lot tbh.

when you say solar energy is low grade are you referring to the actual radiation energy itself, or the electrical energy post conversion to solar generated electrical energy?

If as I suspect, it's the former, then my point stands. The efficiency of the conversion process obviously does limit the potential to generate electricity from any given surface area, but it doesn't limit the utility of that electricity once it is generated, and as the resource is essentially free, unlimited and not currently used for any other purpose (other than causing the loft to overheat in summer), the efficiency of the conversion process isn't particularly important.

Obviously the conversion efficiency combined with the total available area would give the actual theoretical limit on the available electrical solar energy resource, but we're a hell of a long way from this being a significant issue.

If you're talking about the electrical energy generated being low grade because it's at relatively low voltage, well it's easily transformed to higher voltage, with losses in the 2% region (with caveats given above about issues with unbalanced phases etc).

 

[free spirit]

the process of converting low grade to high grade energy.

or is 20MW of electrical output still classed as low grade energy?


ps re previous conversations on your preferred paper calculating EROEI for solar PV - note the distinct lack of any tarmac road surfaces anywhere on that entire site.

also, this site uses 20-21% module efficiency Sunpower panels, mounted on single axis trackers to improve the efficiency of the conversion of the available solar energy to electricity.

 

[free spirit]

btw, I think I see the problem with your bath analagy.

a bath would be a finite quantity of low grade heat energy.

The reality with renewables is more like a continually flowing almost unlimited deluge of tepid water / low grade energy that we can tap into in order to transform it into more useful higher grade energy electrical or heat energy (or even use it as relatively low grade energy directly, eg via solar low temperature under floor heating, or simply passive solar heating).

Except it's not even just a continual flow of low grade heat energy, it's actually already available in multiple forms that can be converted to either heat or electricity via different methods, which can be used to complement each other to improve the reliability and scale of the overall supply of high grade energy that's possible.

 

[ayatollah]

Whilst undoubtedly interesting, and for me at least, educational, this looks like a debate which will continue forever. No matter what evidence on the potential for renewables Free Spirit , and others, flags up, the "industrial society is soon gonna be toast, and world population is going to have to plummet" proponents just aint going to change that position one iota. There seems to be an unshakeable determination by Falcon above all, never to consider the real core issue about resource usage in a looming age of eventual oil supply peaking, namely the grossly unequal consumption of all the world's resources under capitalism by the capitalist elite specifically, but by the USA and Western Europe in general. I don't think that at least an acknowledgement that an industrialised society could be run more rationally, with less resource wastage on luxury goods and military goods, with all of the world's population still adequately fed and housed,on a declining oil resource base,is a political option, is unreasonable, surely ?

Resource usage, and relative shares of the world's resources is political, It isn't just a technical debate. A "statement of the obvious", for most people, but not for Falcon et al, who appear to accept as a key element of "base assumptions" that existing social relations and the inherent squandering of a major part of world resources by a tiny parasitic ruling elite, under a chaotic capitalist system, will prevail until the lights go out. I don't think the people facing starvation whilst the rich cruise about super-consuming will let this prevail. Political change therefor has to be factored in, bigtime, into the technical debate.

I know this has been said lots of times on this thread.. but I just thought I'd plonk it in again, before utter despair at unstoppable imminent world population collapse and the emergeance of a new post industrial agricultural dark age gripped the thread again.

 

[Falcon]

if you stopped using the stupid analagies and just said exactly what you meant it'd help a lot tbh

Sure. I think you don't understand thermodynamics, and your guesses and hunches are about how what is a highly unintuitive aspect of physics are doing you and your argument a disservice.

I had hoped to encourage you, through analogy, to consider the possibility that you don't fully understand what's going on here. If I overestimated your curiosity, then I apologise.

In the meantime, what your little picture doesn't show is the vast hydrocarbon powered global industrial manufacturing infrastructure that lies behind it, without which the components of the project could not have been mined, refined, transported, assembled, maintained, and replaced, nor yet the hydrocarbon powered global industrial manufacturing infrastructure without which the vehicles servicing the site etc. etc. nor yet the hydrocarbon powered industrial food manufacturing system without which the engineers, construction workers, and operators etc. etc. etc., nor yet the etc. without which the distribution system couldn't etc, nor yet the etc. without which the consumer appliances could not etc. etc.

Take all that and render it into a black box (nowhere visible in your snap). The power demand of that black box exceeds the power output of the array, and your array does not drive large sections of that black box. Your array - necessary for the upconversion of low grade solar radiation into high grade electrical energy - makes no positive contribution to our energy needs after its own manufacturing, construction, operation, maintenance and replacement energy costs are accounted for.

 

[Falcon]

There seems to be an unshakeable determination by Falcon above all, never to consider the real core issue about resource usage in a looming age of eventual oil supply peaking, namely the grossly unequal consumption of all the world's resources under capitalism by the capitalist elite specifically, but by the USA and Western Europe in general. I don't think that at least an acknowledgement that an industrialised society could be run more rationally, with less resource wastage on luxury goods and military goods, with all of the world's population still adequately fed and housed,on a declining oil resource base,is a political option, is unreasonable, surely ?

I specifically do not believe that an industrialised society could be run on any basis in the absence of hydrocarbon or other stock of high grade energy resource, since a stock of high grade energy resource is a necessary prerequisite of to maintain industrialised society's inherent energy intensity.

I believe a fraction of the current world's population could be sustained by a solar agrarian society (the only sort of society available to us in the absence of a stock of high grade energy resource). The last time it was tried - in an era that preceded the wholesale destruction of soil and water resources associated with 100 years of industrial agriculture practices, and the climate instability associated with 100 years of atmospheric emissions - that number was about 2 billion. I agree that a number greater than 2 billion might be theoretically achieved if the enormous number of factors that will otherwise drive global resource wars are somehow overcome. I believe the assertion that it might be 7 billion is not supported by the reality of our situation.

 

[free spirit]

your guesses and hunches are about how what is a highly unintuitive aspect of physics are doing you and your argument a disservice..

I wouldn't have to use guessing or hunches if you'd say wtf it is that you're actually talking about instead of talking in riddles.

for the zillionth time...

when you refer to low grade energy in relation to solar energy are you referring to the solar radiation itself, or the electrical energy produced after the conversion process, or something else entirely*?

it's a simple enough question is it not?


*In which case please explain specifically (without the use of analagies) what you're referring to.

 

[free spirit]

In the meantime, what your little picture doesn't show is the vast hydrocarbon powered global industrial manufacturing infrastructure that lies behind it

this being the global industrial manufacturing infrastructure that already exists?

We are not starting from a situation where we require renewable power to build this industrialised society and infrastructure from scratch, therefore we don't need to run EROEI calculations, or base our thought process as if we were.

Yes this infrastructure needs powering and maintaining, and ultimately replacing at the end of it's life but that's an entirely different kettle of fish to needing to build it all from scratch in the first place. As an example of why this is important, consider that the energy needed to produce new aluminium is 20 x the energy needed to produce it from recycled aluminium, or 3 x with steel. Similarly resurfacing an existing road takes a hell of a lot less energy input than building an entire new road from scratch, or in renewable energy terms, replacing the head and blades on a wind turbine at the end of its life takes a lot less energy than installing one from scratch, assuming the foundations and possibly the tower don't need replacing.

So while I'd agree that building the current industrial infrastructure from scratch would have been impossible without fossil fuel input, it doesn't necessarily follow that we need anything like the same level of fossil fuel input, on top of renewable energy input, and probably a reasonable level of nuclear to run and maintain that industrial infrastructure, particularly when you also factor in the massive efficiency savings that are relatively simply achievable from the current situation.

 

[elbows]

Sure. I think you don't understand thermodynamics, and your guesses and hunches are about how what is a highly unintuitive aspect of physics are doing you and your argument a disservice.

I had hoped to encourage you, through analogy, to consider the possibility that you don't fully understand what's going on here. If I overestimated your curiosity, then I apologise.

Was it really an analogy likely to stimulate curiosity, as opposed to causing the reader to scratch their head about the slightly unusual setting you are asking thermodynamic entropy to perform in?

In the meantime, what your little picture doesn't show is the vast hydrocarbon powered global industrial manufacturing infrastructure that lies behind it, without which the components of the project could not have been mined, refined, transported, assembled, maintained, and replaced, nor yet the hydrocarbon powered global industrial manufacturing infrastructure without which the vehicles servicing the site etc. etc. nor yet the hydrocarbon powered industrial food manufacturing system without which the engineers, construction workers, and operators etc. etc. etc., nor yet the etc. without which the distribution system couldn't etc, nor yet the etc. without which the consumer appliances could not etc. etc.

Take all that and render it into a black box (nowhere visible in your snap). The power demand of that black box exceeds the power output of the array, and your array does not drive large sections of that black box. Your array - necessary for the upconversion of low grade solar radiation into high grade electrical energy - makes no positive contribution to our energy needs after its own manufacturing, construction, operation, maintenance and replacement energy costs are accounted for.

I am left with an increasingly strong impression that, faced with a world that has an abundance of denial about quite how much of a magic multiplier fossil fuels have been, you've overdone the divisor you use to bring things back to reality.

When it comes to fascinating and vital topics such as the amount of energy used to produce a solar panel, I think we are better served with actual numbers rather than analogies. I am aware that this alone does not free us from the quagmire you present, because you will want to count all related externalities to the extent that we soon end up back at 'to make this stuff we need the grand total of whats available to us today via fossil fuels etc'. But its still a bloody good starting point to see just how much energy is directly used by the manufacture, and then people can argue about how much extra on top, with at least a minimum value as common ground beneath our feet.

You arent at all wrong to raise the issue, its one of the big ones, but despite its huge size it still seems like you are magnifying it further than is sensible.It seems you sometimes obscure a dimension to stretch a point. For example your black box example seems to be lacking the dimension of time. Make no mistake, I agree that nothing people are calling 'renewable energy' or 'sustainable' is actually assured to be so in the longer term if it involves anything beyond pretty primitive technology. Quite how sustainable it may be posible to make it is only going to become clear once we have tried over time to build the first generations of this stuff up to a notable scale.

Time marches on, we are using a lot of energy and other resources to power the present system, and taking a chunk of that capacity and using it to build new infrastructure, whilst not magically plucking anything from this air, is still more worthwhile that squandering that energy on different pursuits. You can count the food the solar workers needed to eat, but not without acknowledging they would have needed that food whatever they were doing, its not a brand new burden that has come out of nowhere because someone decided panels must be made.

I do consider it pretty alarming that infrastructure & renewable technology energy requirements are not more prominently placed in mainstream discussions about this sort of thing, at its most extreme leading some people to get wrongheaded ideas about 'free energy'. But I dont think that just because these issues are not explicitly discussed all the time, that they are not already accounted for somewhere in the great equations. I doubt they are accounted for fully, as per general accountancy & capitalist failings when it comes to acknowledging all 'externalities', but they are in there somewhere, mostly presented in terms of financial cost. Which then muddies the waters considerably since as soon as we are using a money price to describe a cost, a lot of baggage and assumption gets introduced. So I dont blame you for trying to highlight this stuff quite forcefully, nothing wrong with trying to dig deeper into an issue that is normally described superficially along the lines of 'era of cheap oil over, can we afford to do x,y,z' and the like. The problem for me is when you do describe it, it seems somehow distorted to me, if everyone elses assumptions about externalities and interdependence are too small, yours are too large.

 

[Falcon]

I am left with an increasingly strong impression that, faced with a world that has an abundance of denial about quite how much of a magic multiplier fossil fuels have been, you've overdone the divisor you use to bring things back to reality.

Just as I'm left with the impression that you are a "goldilocks" alarmist - the problem is just hot enough to generate enough alarm to mobilise support for your nostrum, but not so hot that your nostrum is precluded. So of course you need to attack the margin, because the margin is deeply inconvenient to your argument.

There's a lot of it about on here. It's been fascinating, for example, to watch people who claim to be ardent environmentalists transform themselves into climate change denialists in order to preserve the thread of their argument. "Yes the environment is destabilising and degrading fast, but not so fast that it threatens my theories about enhanced crop yields post-hydrocarbon." etc. It's intellectual opportunism.

Meanwhile, where one can "overdo" ideology, and one can "overdo" optimism, one cannot "overdo" physics, and this is a matter of physics.

 

[elbows]

Science, I am the science. Yeah right. You should try pointing your critical eye at a mirror some time, unless we are transitioning to a new energy system based on hyperbole and pompous assholes who, just because they 'changed sides' from industry to doom-monger, think they have a superior view of reality. Dont confuse making a career out of it with having a grip.

 

[Falcon]

Science, I am the science. Yeah right. You should try pointing your critical eye at a mirror some time, unless we are transitioning to a new energy system based on hyperbole and pompous assholes who, just because they 'changed sides' from industry to doom-monger, think they have a superior view of reality. Dont confuse making a career out of it with having a grip.

Oops. You often explore the boundary between disagreeing and being disagreeable, and you just crossed the line again.

I disagree with you. I don't think you are an asshole. I believe the strength of my argument doesn't require me to. Your mileage may vary.

 

[elbows]

I'm sure I will continue to explore that boundary, just as you can often be found exploring the fault-line between science fact and distorted physics of a sort that may infuriate those who are wedded to scientific methods.

 

[free spirit]

Meanwhile, where one can "overdo" ideology, and one can "overdo" optimism, one cannot "overdo" physics, and this is a matter of physics.

of course it is.

just physics

not economics

not social factors

not politics

just physics.

if it were just physics there'd be no problem at all as we could cover ever AONB and national park in the country in wind turbines and solar panels, flood the valleys for hydro, build the severn barrage, build a new generation of thorium MSRs, etc.

But it's not just physics is it.

 

[Falcon]

I'm sure I will continue to explore that boundary, just as you can often be found exploring the fault-line between science fact and distorted physics of a sort that may infuriate those who are wedded to scientific methods.

In what way are thermodynamics and industrial metabolism "distortion of physics", as distinct from "physics"? Could it be that you label any aspect of physics which presents an inconvenience to your theories as a "distortion", as a device for marginalising it?

of course it is.

just physics

not economics

not social factors

not politics

just physics.

I can think of no aspect of physics which are altered by consideration of economics, social factors, and politics. I can think of no economics, social factors, or politics, that can be conceived of independently of physical constraints. I think the disconnection from physical reality necessitated by your hopes is more or less complete.

if it were just physics there'd be no problem at all as we could cover ever AONB and national park in the country in wind turbines and solar panels, flood the valleys for hydro, build the severn barrage, build a new generation of thorium MSRs, etc.

But it's not just physics is it.

Err, no. I've just spent several pages pointing out that physics specifically precludes such a possibility.

 

[free spirit]

Err, no. I've just spent several pages pointing out that physics specifically precludes such a possibility.

I beg to differ. You've actually spent the last few pages talking mostly about baths of tepid water, which have sod all relevance to the actual point.

The fact you think it's all down to physics, and nothing to do with other factors says a hell of a lot about how badly you understand the situation tbh.

 

[Falcon]

I beg to differ. You've actually spent the last few pages talking mostly about baths of tepid water, which have sod all relevance to the actual point.

Delicious straw man. The pre-Copernicans presumably felt the same about heliocentricity hypothesis. Assume, hypothetically, that you weren't aware that you were ignorant in this case (I'm sure you will concede there are things that you don't know you don't know). Then novel information would appear to have sod all relevance, yet you would be incapable of distinguishing between that which you knew to be irrelevant, and that which you did not know was relevant. That is the central problem of ignorance, and why curiosity is so necessary to protect us from it.

The fact you think it's all down to physics, and nothing to do with other factors says a hell of a lot about how badly you understand the situation tbh.

I don't think it's all down to physics, and nothing to do with other factors. I think it has something to do with the other factors, within the constraints imposed by physics.

I'm intrigued - exactly which part of that statement do you disagree with? Are you now suggesting that economics, sociology, and politics can transcend physical reality? How peculiar does this world view get?